PokerStars to make $50/$100 high stakes games Zoom-only

Find out more about the big changes to the online high stakes games and what some of the pros think about it.

Phil Galfond on the changes

I think zoom only is the best (by far) of a lot of bad options. Those saying that Rec players won't enjoy Zoom... seems very counter-intuitive to me. Zoom is faster and let's them see more hands & hit more flops per minute.  I used to love my job and love playing. I would sleep well, go to the gym, get food, and sit down and almost always have something to play, whether it be 100/200+, or 25/50. Then I would focus and have fun playing the game I love, trying to play as best I can. Today, the main skills you need are seat-getting, table-hopping, and altering your sleep schedule to not miss a fish. Playing a 25/50 session hasn't been fun for me in a over a year. I have to constantly scan the lobby while I play, and constantly watch to avoid getting buttoned. I'm not even focusing on the interesting parts of the game... I autopilot that part. What's not fun for rec players is when no games are ever running for them to come sit in. That is, until they figure out that if they just sit, a game will fill up. Even those of you who think you are only profiting in the current system by bumhunt/autoseat/buttoning could very easily do better in an ecosystem where games run more often, and rec players enjoy themselves more.  You might get pretty good at poker too!

Today PokerStars revealed that it will be trialling Zoom-only high stakes games at the $50/$100 level. From January 1, all $50/$100 No Limit and PLO ring game tables and Table Starters will be removed at off-peak times and replaced with $50/$100 Zoom pools. 

No decision has been made yet as to whether this will be a permanent change. 

“PokerStars developed a special High Stakes Zoom product with an eye toward replacing all High Stakes games with Zoom, and it’s now time to put it to a test,” said Nick Williamson, Ring Game Manager for PokerStars.

“Our players have told us that they want to focus on playing poker, rather than worrying about seating, lobby and software settings to get them the best seat at the table. This is in an effort to allow players to concentrate on actually playing poker while encouraging a healthy, competitive, non-predatory environment in our highest stakes games,” said Williamson.

High stakes railbirds will still be able to watch the nosebleed games, as the PokerStars server will pick out the (likely) most exciting hands from the last ten minutes at an observer table. 

In a press release PokerStars stated that they were aware of potential issues with moving towards a Zoom-Only offering, but said that the current state of the games at these stakes makes the risks associated with a major change worth taking.

This move by PokerStars is a bid to reduce what they say is a currently predatory environment. Right now because of the small player pools, a culture of 'bum hunting' is making the games unplayable. Many high stakes players have reported that the biggest decisions at nosebleed tables are more around game selection and monitoring the lobbies, rather than the action at the tables itself. 

This is also to stop the practice of buttoning, which is whereby players either try to play the button only when they join a heads-up game, or when they choose to leave before posting the blinds again after a weak player leaves. 

Obviously the biggest impact this will have will be on the game dynamic itself. Because the high stakes community is small, the flow of the game and the metagame between the players is very important. Changing the table every hand is going to make it a very different feeling game.

However, because the player pools are still going to be small, there will still likely be a strong element of reads and metagame involved. Most importantly it will encourage action from everyone at the high stakes; something which has been greatly missing from stakes like $25/$50 and $50/$100.  

Two big threads on the high stakes forums at 2+2 have seen a number of high profile players sharing their views on the subject. Most notably Phil Galfond, who was in support of the changes. However the general early consensus is mixed.

What are your views on this big change by PokerStars? Is this the change the nosebleed games need, or will it harm them? Let us know in the thread below:

 PokerStars to introduce $50/$100 games as Zoom-only

by Barry Carter